Generate Tarot Reading (PDF or HTML)

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Goes beyond annotations (which only declare non-readonly, open-world, non-idempotent) by disclosing the deterministic mulberry32 seeding model, the daily-seed default when seed is omitted, the upright-only switch, and the 100-credit Tier 4 cost. It omits the PDF vs HTML output choice that its own title advertises, so the agent cannot control or predict the returned artefact type.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core action, then defaults, then option semantics, then cost metadata; the spread enumeration is justified because the schema gives spread only maxLength 64 with no enum. Only mild redundancy, and the enum dump is long but load-bearing.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and cost/endpoint are supplied. But for a costly, credential-free report generator the description omits the language and whitelabel parameters entirely and leaves the PDF/HTML output question unresolved against the title.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only covers spread, seed, and allowReversed. It says nothing about language (21-value enum) or the large nested whitelabel branding object (logo, colours, fonts, company metadata alongside colours). For 6 parameters with zero schema documentation, this leaves half the surface undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a concrete verb and artefact ('Render a tarot reading PDF') plus a default spread and the deck used, so the agent knows this produces a document rather than a card lookup. It never explicitly distinguishes itself from the many sibling draw/interpret tarot tools (e.g. astroway_tarot_rider_waite_draw_three_card, astroway_ai_interpret_tarot), leaving that distinction to be inferred from the word 'PDF'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: the framing as a PDF render suggests 'use when you need a formatted report'. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to the cheaper sibling draw tools or to astroway_reports_generate, which matters in a sibling set this dense.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.